On 2/9/22 19:27, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 2/8/22 23:58, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
On 2/8/22 18:24, Bart Van Assche wrote:
+struct imm_cmd_priv {
+ struct scsi_pointer scsi_pointer;
+};
+
Why the indirection?
You can use 'struct scsi_pointer' directly as payload, no?
The indirection makes it easy to add more private command data in the
future. However, I don't have a strong opinion about this. I can remove
the indirection if you prefer this?
That argument would be true for drivers under active development, but
these are ancient drivers which are in maintenance mode (at best).
I'd be surprised if we need to add more stuff to command payload.
Except the host_scribble bit; in the future we might be wanting to
remove it in favour of the command payload, too.
But imm is not one of them, so we should be using 'struct scsi_pointer'
as the command payload directly.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
